Summary
reversing denial of defendant's motion for return of property because trial court failed to address the applicability of section 705.105
Summary of this case from Adams v. StateOpinion
No. 5D15–2492.
08-26-2016
Marcos BONIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Jacqueline Rae Luker, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Jacqueline Rae Luker, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the order summarily denying his motion for return of property. The State properly concedes error in that the trial court did not address the applicability of section 705.105, Florida Statutes. See Davis v. State, 63 So.3d 888, 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding that lower court must attach records to establish property was seized as evidence to support summary denial of motion for return of property pursuant to section 705.105 ); Stevenson v. State, 688 So.2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (reversing denial of motion for return of property pursuant to section 705.105 where record did not establish statute applied).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.